Very timely, you’re right. Now show me some polls from 1955, would ya’?
2020...
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Hüsker Dü
DA
Watch out he may think you want a selfie of his. It's just that he misinterprets, gets things wrong and is confused.
Sheriff Joe
DA
JULY 2, 2019
Willie Brown's Ex-Girlfriend Opposes School Choice
By Daniel John Sobieski
The well-rehearsed attack by Sen. Kamala Harris on Joe Biden that destroyed his candidacy during the clown-car Democratic presidential debates should have come as no surprise to those who have watched her rise to political prominence. Never mind its relevance or accuracy -- for Harris the ends have always justified the means.
We saw during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that Kamala Harris is an ambitious politician with a chain-saw-prosecutorial style designed to bludgeon her targets with attacks and arguments that are more bluster than brilliant. She revealed herself to be a political opportunist who, as Sen. Cory Booker’s “Spartacus moment” fizzled, knows an “Elmer Gantry moment” when she sees one. As Jonathan S. Tobin noted in National Review:
She first earned notoriety in the Senate last year by demonstrating open incivility bordering on bullying when she interrogated Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the national-intelligence chiefs. Bullying witnesses and cutting them off before they have a chance to answer is her modus operandi during hearings…
The same qualities were on display during her questioning of Kavanaugh. But while, like the other Democrats, she never succeeding in outsmarting the judge, she was the only one to momentarily flummox him by bringing up the Mueller investigation.
She started with an impossibly general and specious query about whether he had ever discussed the Mueller probe with “anyone.”…by asserting, even by implication, that Kavanaugh might somehow be part of the Russia-collusion discussion, Harris gave liberal Democrats exactly the kind of red meat they crave.
Along with her snide and disrespectful prosecutorial tone, that made her the winner of the first day of the Kavanaugh primary.
Willie Brown's Ex-Girlfriend Opposes School Choice
By Daniel John Sobieski
The well-rehearsed attack by Sen. Kamala Harris on Joe Biden that destroyed his candidacy during the clown-car Democratic presidential debates should have come as no surprise to those who have watched her rise to political prominence. Never mind its relevance or accuracy -- for Harris the ends have always justified the means.
We saw during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that Kamala Harris is an ambitious politician with a chain-saw-prosecutorial style designed to bludgeon her targets with attacks and arguments that are more bluster than brilliant. She revealed herself to be a political opportunist who, as Sen. Cory Booker’s “Spartacus moment” fizzled, knows an “Elmer Gantry moment” when she sees one. As Jonathan S. Tobin noted in National Review:
She first earned notoriety in the Senate last year by demonstrating open incivility bordering on bullying when she interrogated Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the national-intelligence chiefs. Bullying witnesses and cutting them off before they have a chance to answer is her modus operandi during hearings…
The same qualities were on display during her questioning of Kavanaugh. But while, like the other Democrats, she never succeeding in outsmarting the judge, she was the only one to momentarily flummox him by bringing up the Mueller investigation.
She started with an impossibly general and specious query about whether he had ever discussed the Mueller probe with “anyone.”…by asserting, even by implication, that Kavanaugh might somehow be part of the Russia-collusion discussion, Harris gave liberal Democrats exactly the kind of red meat they crave.
Along with her snide and disrespectful prosecutorial tone, that made her the winner of the first day of the Kavanaugh primary.
Sheriff Joe
DA
JULY 2, 2019
Why We Need to Stop Saying 'Health Care'
By Leann Horrocks
The Democrats have once again sucked us into using their terminology, and it is much to our detriment. We should be saying “Medical Care” instead of “Health Care.”
Here are two reasons we need to change our terminology.
1. “Health Care” has far broader implications than “Medical Care” does.
“Universal “Health Care” meets the standard for the classic progressive goal -- it is vague, moral-sounding and completely unattainable so it will have a long shelf life.
The intensive use of this expression “Health Care” allows people to lump in all kinds of “well-being” issues. This is dangerous, and was the main thrust behind ObamaCare. If the cost of general well-being is the responsibility of the government, that confers huge power to the government. If something politicians don’t like can be linked to well-being, then the government can stop it because it is too costly for the American taxpayer.
This kind of thinking leads to people like Michael Bloomberg doing things he personally thinks are “morally right.” Remember this?
"A proposal in 2012 by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to limit the sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces ignited a global debate over soda consumption."
Fortunately, this idea was knocked down in 2014 by New York’s highest court. Mayor Bloomberg probably had good intentions from the perspective of the rarified world he lives in, but it was beyond pushy and thoughtlessly harmful to vendors and consumers both.
Far more dangerous are political issues -- and today everything is political. A President Swalwell (God help us) would surely think semi-automatic guns are detrimental to the “health” of Americans and would be very costly to a single-payer plan. Treating all those messy gunshot wounds are clogging the hospitals in Chicago. Clearly they have to go -- as a matter of fact, maybe all guns should go -- we can start with the law-abiders, then move on to the bad guys.
Why We Need to Stop Saying 'Health Care'
By Leann Horrocks
The Democrats have once again sucked us into using their terminology, and it is much to our detriment. We should be saying “Medical Care” instead of “Health Care.”
Here are two reasons we need to change our terminology.
1. “Health Care” has far broader implications than “Medical Care” does.
“Universal “Health Care” meets the standard for the classic progressive goal -- it is vague, moral-sounding and completely unattainable so it will have a long shelf life.
The intensive use of this expression “Health Care” allows people to lump in all kinds of “well-being” issues. This is dangerous, and was the main thrust behind ObamaCare. If the cost of general well-being is the responsibility of the government, that confers huge power to the government. If something politicians don’t like can be linked to well-being, then the government can stop it because it is too costly for the American taxpayer.
This kind of thinking leads to people like Michael Bloomberg doing things he personally thinks are “morally right.” Remember this?
"A proposal in 2012 by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to limit the sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces ignited a global debate over soda consumption."
Fortunately, this idea was knocked down in 2014 by New York’s highest court. Mayor Bloomberg probably had good intentions from the perspective of the rarified world he lives in, but it was beyond pushy and thoughtlessly harmful to vendors and consumers both.
Far more dangerous are political issues -- and today everything is political. A President Swalwell (God help us) would surely think semi-automatic guns are detrimental to the “health” of Americans and would be very costly to a single-payer plan. Treating all those messy gunshot wounds are clogging the hospitals in Chicago. Clearly they have to go -- as a matter of fact, maybe all guns should go -- we can start with the law-abiders, then move on to the bad guys.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Lump in the term “medical insurance” which in America does not sit on a market, thus no risk pools, and now you no longer have insurance.
Your righteous indignation is hilarious.
How far back does your family go?
https://www.behindthename.com/name/henry
Hüsker Dü
DA
So are you giving reparations.
I thought you white boys were suppossed to be smart? But I see you're doing your best to disprove that theory.
Hüsker Dü
DA
You are part African, we all are.
I’m actually part African American.
I understand you feel compelled to talk about race, but dude, really?
Look at this country and tell me you think Whitey is smart.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Spelling it with "A" now, you must have come into some money.
Another unsolicited " Perverted " remark from Spola
that supports ALL the previous comments about his
demeanor on previous forums.....Good one Spola the Sicko.
Not to mention slightly Racist in nature by DEMOCRAT standards..!
Hmmmm.....1600's
Vermont abolished slavery July 8th 1777....
Connecticut slavery thru 1790....
Maine slavery thru early 1800's....
New Hampshire slavery thru early 1800's.....
Based on your past posting history and the falsehoods
you present, I just do NOT find any of your denial comment
worthy of trust.
I think you posted that to make yourself feel good.
If Democrats get elected/steal the office of Presidency we ALL
will be paying reparations no matter what....
I feel even bringing the issue up for consideration is like
picking the remains of a scab off as it is finally healing....
Just PURE sickness by the DEMOCRATS...!
The daughter of one of my direct ancestors up the Corliss chain was Mary Neff, nurse to the children of Hannah Duston, well-known to any New Hampshire school child. In 1697, during King William's War (one of the first of the French and Indian Wars) the women were captured by an Abenaki raiding party from Canada. One night, while the captors slept, Hannah and Mary and a young boy captive named Samuel killed them all, men, women, and children, and took their scalps back as proof.
Mary was a house servant, not a slave or slave owner.
More here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Duston